07-28-2006, 09:52 AM
About my own post 16:
A number of my questions are obviously preliminaries, which will be answered when one starts studying linguistics. For example (referring to the numbered questions in post 16):
(2) One will learn whether the rules that apply within one language family also work on another family
(6) When one studies IE linguistics, it will become apparent whether they use fudging to make the model fit (special pleading, special rules for special cases, etc).
Though some of the other questions I posed will not be answered in linguistics <i>classes</i>, studying linguistics and how it works will allow one to get an understanding of the process which will then enable answering the remaining questions for oneself, I'm guessing.
About what I mean when I use the term non-determinism for describing the method: it's when one cannot determine causation. That is, given the output, one cannot confirm what the input was using the method, because any number of inputs would give rise to the same output (which input it was remains a mystery).
A very simple example in maths, which is a precise science: for instance, given y = x ^2 (x-squared) and y = 4, we don't know for certain that x was 2. Because it could have been -2. That's a case of only 2 solutions being possible (2 inputs for output y = 4). However, there are other example cases of mathematical formulae where there can be n solutions (values of x) for output y.
World history and that of languages is not maths, its far more ambiguous. Small changes can cause greater and unforeseen effects. End result is known because it can be observed, but the cause/instigation cannot be determined from the observations.
So how this relates back to the IE-family model and its view of language diffusion is this: although they might have recognised the relationship between the languages and modelled their vision (a scenario) of how language dispersal occurred, and their methods of showing inter-IE-language relationships followed this vision, could there not have been many other ways/means in which the dispersal happened that would still explain the same observed similarities between the IE languages?
Post 17:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not at all, on the contrary. Thanks for the analysis. I still think we must study Philology and even disprove its present "rulebook" if needed. Remember - "Solution of a Problem is through it"?
Anyways dont you think we have got to follow Philology even to unearth the true evolution theory?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I understand what you are saying now and agree with you completely.
We do need to study philology and find out how it works - that is, find out how they defined the rules. Then we can use the same means to define rules that would support (or ideally test, since we actually want to be scientific) our hypothesis. Because at present, the IE view is merely a model that they'd fitted onto the data in a time when there was little external evidence (from other sciences) to corroborate or disprove it, and it was one that appears to not require any external support or validation to stand independently, seeing as how the counter-evidence from other sciences have left it yet unaffected.
We'd want to propose a new linguistic model using the comparable logic, and then test whether its more valid and fits the data (and the findings of the other fields) better.
A number of my questions are obviously preliminaries, which will be answered when one starts studying linguistics. For example (referring to the numbered questions in post 16):
(2) One will learn whether the rules that apply within one language family also work on another family
(6) When one studies IE linguistics, it will become apparent whether they use fudging to make the model fit (special pleading, special rules for special cases, etc).
Though some of the other questions I posed will not be answered in linguistics <i>classes</i>, studying linguistics and how it works will allow one to get an understanding of the process which will then enable answering the remaining questions for oneself, I'm guessing.
About what I mean when I use the term non-determinism for describing the method: it's when one cannot determine causation. That is, given the output, one cannot confirm what the input was using the method, because any number of inputs would give rise to the same output (which input it was remains a mystery).
A very simple example in maths, which is a precise science: for instance, given y = x ^2 (x-squared) and y = 4, we don't know for certain that x was 2. Because it could have been -2. That's a case of only 2 solutions being possible (2 inputs for output y = 4). However, there are other example cases of mathematical formulae where there can be n solutions (values of x) for output y.
World history and that of languages is not maths, its far more ambiguous. Small changes can cause greater and unforeseen effects. End result is known because it can be observed, but the cause/instigation cannot be determined from the observations.
So how this relates back to the IE-family model and its view of language diffusion is this: although they might have recognised the relationship between the languages and modelled their vision (a scenario) of how language dispersal occurred, and their methods of showing inter-IE-language relationships followed this vision, could there not have been many other ways/means in which the dispersal happened that would still explain the same observed similarities between the IE languages?
Post 17:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not at all, on the contrary. Thanks for the analysis. I still think we must study Philology and even disprove its present "rulebook" if needed. Remember - "Solution of a Problem is through it"?
Anyways dont you think we have got to follow Philology even to unearth the true evolution theory?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I understand what you are saying now and agree with you completely.
We do need to study philology and find out how it works - that is, find out how they defined the rules. Then we can use the same means to define rules that would support (or ideally test, since we actually want to be scientific) our hypothesis. Because at present, the IE view is merely a model that they'd fitted onto the data in a time when there was little external evidence (from other sciences) to corroborate or disprove it, and it was one that appears to not require any external support or validation to stand independently, seeing as how the counter-evidence from other sciences have left it yet unaffected.
We'd want to propose a new linguistic model using the comparable logic, and then test whether its more valid and fits the data (and the findings of the other fields) better.